Rishi Sunak

mackenzie said:
I'm no activist. It just makes my blood boil when men pontificate about what women should be prepared to accept.
Click to expand...

Whilst I get this, imagine how trans people feel with the pontification about them, they’re all either rapists or changing their gender to be better at sports…

Any societal fix has to come from a starting point of empathy, think there’s a lot of people on all sides of the debate a long way away from that at the mo.
 
mackenzie said:
It has an impact on me, as a woman.

I don't care to be called "a woman who menstruates" or anything similar. I'm a woman---an adult human female. I'm not some sub category.
I don't (and won't) want to have to insert my preferred pronoun on my signature email at work. I'm a woman. That's it.


I don't want to have biological men competing in sports against my female counterparts. It's unfair and ridiculous.
I don't want biological men telling me I'm a bigot because I don't accept they are the same as me.

I don't want to share the same toilet as a biological man.

I don't want to impede any other persons way of living, but I'm damn sure they shouldn't be allowed to impede on mine either.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t it be inaccurate to use the label ‘a woman who menstruates’ given the amount of women who do not? Does saying this make me a smart arse? Probably.

I know I’m male because I just am. It’s like at the core of my being. I can’t imagine being female, because I’m not. So, isn’t the idea of who we are rooted in our brains on a primal level? And if our physical being matches our inner being (for want of a better description) then fine. And if doesn’t then there is an issue.

Do we have a right to demand that a physical male or female be forever in that form irrespective of their inner being?

Equally, I can see how women get pissed off at having to compromise and cede to ‘men’ yet again. I probably don’t agree they are compromising, but I’m a man so I have no real idea of what it’s like from a woman’s perspective. I may see it, but I don’t feel it because I haven’t lived it.

Yeah, I‘m all over the place on this issue.
 
some dorky mare on Sky News just saying Sunak was ok to say what he said because he was unaware but FFS Starmer said Esther Ghey was in the building. Seems Sunak "didn't hear it" ........ we face a GE where a useless PM will conduct a campaign via the means of flip chart TV and social media presentations. Laughable and doomed to total failure
 
bluethrunthru said:
some dorky mare on Sky News just saying Sunak was ok to say what he said because he was unaware but FFS Starmer said Esther Ghey was in the building. Seems Sunak "didn't hear it" ........ we face a GE where a useless PM will conduct a campaign via the means of flip chart TV and social media presentations. Laughable and doomed to total failure
Click to expand...
Are you saying that they are going to fail once again while waiting time on delivering what they’ve already failed on?
 
Sunak couldn't give a shit. - "No shit Sherlock" I hear you say.
He'll piss off after the next election unless the result isn't anywhere near as bad as most expect. Calling an early GE will cast doubts on his judgement if they get shafted, but allowing the parliament to run its course means he can't be blamed for the timing.
 
East Level 2 said:
Sunak couldn't give a shit. - "No shit Sherlock" I hear you say.
He'll piss off after the next election unless the result isn't anywhere near as bad as most expect. Calling an early GE will cast doubts on his judgement if they get shafted, but allowing the parliament to run its course means he can't be blamed for the timing.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see how long he stays around.
Presumably he's going to stand, and likely get elected. Is he then going to resign a few months later when he's replaced as leader?
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It'll be interesting to see how long he stays around.
Presumably he's going to stand, and likely get elected. Is he then going to resign a few months later when he's replaced as leader?
Click to expand...
Can't see him leading the shadow cabinet unless there is a planned time-bomb crisis that will derail the incoming government. He doesn't need the money but might hang around if he still has some degree of influence/power.
 
East Level 2 said:
Can't see him leading the shadow cabinet unless there is a planned time-bomb crisis that will derail the incoming government. He doesn't need the money but might hang around if he still has some degree of influence/power.
Click to expand...

Me neither.
If they're down at about 150, they'll change leader and the pool to choose from will be small.
Resign and parachute someone in to the seat? That Johnson bloke will be waiting for the call.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Me neither.
If they're down at about 150, they'll change leader and the pool to choose from will be small.
Resign and parachute someone in to the seat? That Johnson bloke will be waiting for the call.
Click to expand...
Fronting up a proven liar as your party leader would give Starmer et al a field day.

As we know though, the Tories don't give a shit or have any shame, so you're probably right
 
Just to address some of the issues raised in response to my posts last night.

I am not "obsessed" about pronouns. After all, it isn't me who bangs on about it in my daily life. I'm more than happy to be civil and polite and I recognise how much it means to some to be addressed in a particular way. What I do object to is anyone telling me that I have to shout out to anybody I work with/communicate with through work what my gender is.
I absolutely refuse that.

Some good points raised about the changing rooms issue, and I don't have the answer. Yet I didn't create the problem. I really feel sorry for those caught up in the problem but it always seems to be women that have to accommodate, and if they won't then they are labelled a bigot by some out there l.

I'm certainly not the type of woman who is a shrinking violet, and I'm not "clutching my pearls" at the sheer "horror" of modern society. I'm pretty tough on a mental/emotional level and life has made me like that.
It's just that sometimes, despite all the effort over the last hundred years or so, it seems like women are in some way being undermined. And that pisses me off.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Don't expect everyone to agree, it's just my point of view
 
East Level 2 said:
Can't see him leading the shadow cabinet unless there is a planned time-bomb crisis that will derail the incoming government. He doesn't need the money but might hang around if he still has some degree of influence/power.
Click to expand...

If they take a loss - won't have to be a big one as a Labour majority of 10 more seats than them is a 90 seat swing to Labour since the last election he will resign before he gets knifed in the back. The reason I think that is simply he is surrounded by the sound of knives being sharpened by all sections of his Party - the sparks are flying off the grinding wheels - even a narrow win with say a 2 seat majority is going to bring the "but we had an 80 seat win under Boris " brigade out with a vengeance so even a win will be a loss. To survive he needs a win like they had in 2019 - can anyone see that being achieved from where they stand in the polls now?
 
"I need someone to get me out of the hole I have dug for myself - can you help me Chris?*

"Sure boss - have you got a spade I can borrow?"

 
bluethrunthru said:
"I need someone to get me out of the hole I have dug for myself - can you help me Chris?*

"Sure boss - have you got a spade I can borrow?"

Click to expand...


After showing early promise, it’s great to see Philps step up to a mature performance in the gormless, hapless stooge role recently vacated by Jenrick.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Fingers in ears……altogether now……lalalalalalalalalalalalala!
Click to expand...

If Sunak had apologised, it wouldn't be a thing.
He was given the opportunity, and could have fashioned a 'will try to do better, no offence was intended' before PMQs ended.

Philp saying that Starmer brought the Gheys into it ignores that Starmer named her before his question. It's baffling that that's the best response he could come up with - refusal to engage looks like evasion, and Naga doesn't much like politicians doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top